Olusola O.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 4.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the analysis of data collected from the primary survey and their interpretation. The research aims to analyse socio-cultural and technology factors and their effects on consumer patronage using a PEST Framework. The Nigeria Security Industry is chosen as a case study. Five companies were selected for sampling. The selected case study organizations were Santana Security Agency Limited, Prudential Guards Limited, Guards Mark, Halogen Security limited and Proton Guards Limited. A total of three hundred and eighty questionnaires (380) were administered to the across the five organizations, seventy six (76) questionnaires to each of these companies using a simple random technique. The total number of questionnaires returned was 304 in total, thus a response rate of 80.0% was achieved. The questionnaire consisted of four parts or sub-scales from where responses were collected. The first part captures respondents bio-data and other socio-economic variables of the respondents; via-a-vis sex of respondent, age, working experience and level in their organization. Part two measures the relationship between advancement and availability of modern technology and consumer patronage in the security industry while Part 3 of the questionnaire measures the relationship between ease of operations and affordability of modern technology in security industry and consumer patronage.The last part measures the roles and influences of religiosity/religion on patronage in security industry. On a similar note, the analysis in this chapter has five sections, starting with an analysis of the demographic data and the four (4) sub-divisions of the instrument and conducts a test of hypothesis as the fifth section. Section one analyses the respondents bio-data and socio-economic variables. Section two analyses the respondents’ choices to the items on the relationship between advancement and availability of modern technology and consumer patronage in the security industry, section three analyses the relationship between ease of operations and affordability of modern technology in security industry and consumer patronage, section five measures the relationship between the roles and influences of religiosity/religion on customer patronage in security industry lastly the fifth section conducts the tests of hypothesis on the three hypotheses stated earlier. This was tested using tests and correlation at 5% level of significance. 4.1 SECTION A: ANALYSIS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC VARIABLES OF RESPONDENTS This section presents and analyses the demographic variables of the 304 respondents that responded to the security instrument. The method employed for analysis is frequency distribution tables. Variables analysed were sex, age, work experience, educational qualifications and respondent’s level in their organization. Table 1: Demographic Variables of respondents Frequency Sex of Respondents Age of Respondents Working Experience of Respondents Column N % Male 193 63.9% Female 109 36.1% Total 302 100.0% 0 .0% Between 20 - 30 years 120 39.7% Between 31 - 40 years 88 29.1% 41 years and above Total 94 302 31.1% 100.0% Below 5 years 101 33.8% Between 6 - 10years 72 24.1% Between 11 - 15 years 51 17.1% Between 16 - 20 years 36 12.0% Above 20 years 39 13.0% Total 299 100.0% 39 13.0% 177 59.0% Masters Degree and above 72 24.0% Others 12 4.0% Total 300 100.0% 76 93 27.0% 33.1% 112 39.9% Under 20 years Educational Qualification NCE/ OND of Respondents HND/ B.Sc. Level in the Organisation Management Staff Senior Staff Junior Staff Source: Field Survey, 2017 Table 1 shows the demographic variables of the respondents {sex, age, years of working experience, educational qualification and level in the organization}. For sex of respondents, 63.9% of the respondents were males constituting the majority while the females constituted 36.1% of the total 304 respondents that responded. For age of the respondents; majority of the respondents are between the 20-30 years age bracket, constituted 39.7% of the 304 respondents. This is followed by respondents that were 41 years and above which constituted 31.1% of the total respondents. Respondents that were between 31 – 40 years was next having constituted 29.1% of the total respondents while none of the respondents indicated been under 20 years of age. In terms of respondents’ working experience, majority of respondents (33.8%) have below 5 years of working experience. This is followed by respondents that have between 6 – 10 years working experience that constituted 24.1% of the total respondents. Respondents having between 11 15 years working experience follows next, constituted 17.1% of the respondents while this is followed by 13.0% of the respondents having above 20yearsworking experience and lastly the least group that are 12.0% of the respondents that have between 16 – 20 years of working experience. For educational qualification, respondents with HND / B.Sc. constituted the majority, 59.0% of total respondents, followed by respondents with Masters degree and above that constituted 24.0%, respondents with NCE / OND are next having constituted 13.0%, while respondents with other qualifications besides this constitute 4% of the total respondents. For respondents’ level in their organization, the junior staffs were the majority of the respondents having constituted 39.9% of the total respondents. This is followed by the senior staff constituting 33.1% and lastly the top management staff that constituted 27.0% of the total respondents. 4.2 SECTION B: ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADVANCEMENT AND AVAILABILITY OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY AND CONSUMER PATRONAGE IN SECURITY INDUSTRY. This section presents the analysis of items measuring the relationship between advancement and availability of modern technology and consumer patronage in the security industry. This consists of analysis of a total five (5) items scored using a Likert scale {Strongly agree, agree, Undecided, Disagree, Strongly disagree}. This is displayed in frequency distribution table below. Table 1: Relationship between advancement and availability of modern technology and consumer patronage in the security industry Strongly Agree Items Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % 116 38.2% 138 45.4% 15 4.9% 19 6.2% 16 5.3% 304 100.0% 88 28.9% 148 48.7% 14 4.6% 52 17.1% 2 .7% 304 100.0% 25 8.2% 55 18.1% 70 23.0% 109 35.9% 45 14.8% 304 100.0% 122 40.1% 118 38.8% 13 4.3% 42 13.8% 9 3.0% 304 100.0% 25 8.3% 72 23.8% 93 30.8% 73 24.2% 39 12.9% 302 100.0% Consumers patronise security companies that have the latest form of technology. Consumers patronize security companies that use CCTV surveillance systems Consumers patronize security companies that have gunshot location technology Consumers patronize security companies that use metal detectors and baggage screening Consumers patronize security companies that use ignition interlock systems Source: Field Survey, 2017 Table 2 shows the respondents choices to relationship between advancement and availability of modern technology and consumer patronage in the security industry. It is seen that a total of 83.6% majority of the respondents agreed consumers patronise security companies that have the latest form of technology. This is resulted from 38.2% of the respondents that indicated they strongly agree and 45.4% of the respondents that ordinarily agreed. On the other hand only 11.5% of the respondents disagreed to this item that consumers patronise security companies that have the latest form of technology. This is added up from 6.2% that ordinarily disagreed, and 5.3% of the respondents that strongly disagreed to the item. It is seen that 4.9% of the respondents were undecided. For the second item on the table, it was observed that 77.6% of the respondents agreed (28.9% strongly agreed, 48.7% ordinarily agreed) that consumers patronize security companies that use CCTV surveillance systems while 17.8% of the respondents disagreed (17.1% ordinarily disagreed, 0.7% strongly disagreed). A total of 4.6% of the respondents to this item were undecided. For the third item, it was observed that a majority of 50.7% of the respondents disagreed (35.9% ordinarily disagreed, 14.8% strongly disagreed) that consumers patronize security companies that have gunshot location technology while 26.3% of the respondents agreed (8.2% strongly agreed, 18.1% ordinarily agreed). A total of 23.0% of the respondents were undecided. For the fourth item, it was observed that 78.9% of the respondents agreed (40.1% strongly agreed, 38.8% ordinarily agreed) that Consumers patronize security companies that use metal detectors and baggage screening while 16.8% of the respondents disagreed (13.8% ordinarily disagreed, 3.0% strongly disagreed). A total of 4.3% of the respondents were undecided. For the fifth and last item on table 2, it was observed that a large number of the respondents were undecided (30.8%). However, a slight majority of 37.1% of the respondents disagreed (24.2% ordinarily agreed, 12.9% strongly disagreed) that consumers patronize security companies that use metal detectors and baggage screening while 32.1% of the respondents agreed (23.8% ordinarily agreed, 8.3% strongly agreed). Table 3: Relationship between ease of operations and affordability of modern technology in security industry and consumer patronage Strongly Agree Items Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % 155 51.5% 113 37.5% 8 2.7% 24 8.0% 1 .3% 155 51.5% 153 50.8% 103 34.2% 11 3.7% 33 11.0% 1 .3% 153 50.8% 72 23.9% 120 39.9% 30 10.0% 61 20.3% 18 6.0% 72 23.9% 34 11.4% 99 33.2% 61 20.5% 76 25.5% 28 9.4% 34 11.4% 56 18.6% 111 36.9% 49 16.3% 54 17.9% 31 10.3% 56 18.6% Most consumers patronize security companies whose prizes are easily affordable. Most consumers are more particular about the quality of services rendered by the security company than the amount charged. Most consumers will only patronize security companies that have technology barriers, the latest like CCTV, locks, lights, sensors, etc Most consumers will only patronize security companies that have systems, classification crime analysis techniques, and data sharing/ system integration techniques Most consumers will only patronize security companies that have lethal force devices, new technologyenhanced patrol cars, and new police protective gear Source: Field Survey, 2017 Table 3 measures the relationship between ease of operations and affordability of modern technology in security industry and consumer patronage. For the first item which measures if most consumers patronize security companies whose prizes are easily affordable, it was observed that a majority of 89.0% of the respondents agreed to this item. This is resulted from 51.5% of the respondents that strongly agreed and 37.5% of the respondents who ordinarily agreed. On the other hand, 8.3% of the respondents did not agree to this item. This was indicated by 8.0% who ordinarily disagreed and 0.3% of the respondents who strongly disagreed. A total of 2.7% of the respondents were undecided. For the second item on table 3, it was observed that 85.0% of the respondents agreed (50.8% strongly agreed, 34.2% ordinarily agreed) that most consumers are more particular about the quality of services rendered by the security company than the amount charged while 11.3% of the respondents disagreed to this item (11.0% ordinarily disagreed, 0.3% strongly disagreed). A total of 3.7% of the respondents were undecided. For the third item, it was observed that 63.8% of the respondents agreed (23.9% strongly agreed, 39.9% ordinarily agreed) the most consumers will only patronize security companies that have the latest technology like CCTV, barriers, locks, lights, sensors, etc while 26.3% of the respondents disagreed (20.3% ordinarily disagreed, 6.0% strongly disagreed). A total of 10.0% of the respondents were undecided. For the fourth item, it was observed that 44.6% of the respondents agreed (33.2% strongly agreed, 20.5% ordinarily agreed) that most consumers will only patronize security companies that have classification systems, crime analysis techniques, and data sharing/ system integration techniques while 34.9% of the respondents disagreed (17.9% ordinarily disagreed, 10.3% strongly disagreed). A total of 16.3% of the respondents were undecided. For the fifth item in table 3, it was observed that 55.5% of the respondents agreed (36.9% strongly agreed, 16.3% ordinarily agreed) that Most consumers will only patronize security companies that have lethal force devices, new technology-enhanced patrol cars, and new police protective gear while 28.2% of the respondents disagreed to this. A total of 16.3% of the respondents were undecided. Table 4: Relationship between the roles and influences of religiosity/religion on customer patronage in security industry. Strongly Agree Items Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % 12 4.0% 48 15.9% 52 17.3% 134 44.5% 55 18.3% 301 100.0% 16 5.3% 51 17.0% 67 22.3% 111 37.0% 55 18.3% 300 100.0% 24 8.1% 36 12.2% 67 22.6% 117 39.5% 52 17.6% 296 100.0% 10 3.4% 7 2.4% 39 13.1% 136 45.8% 105 35.4% 297 100.0% 10 3.4% 10 3.4% 54 18.2% 141 47.5% 82 27.6% 297 100.0% Most consumers patronized security outfit owned by people from the same religious group as them. Most consumers would not patronize security outfit that have a high number of northern Muslims because of the fear of insurgence. Most consumers would not patronize security companies that have a high number of Niger- deltas for fear of kidnapping and Militancy Most consumers patronize security companies that have only Muslims employees Most consumers patronize security companies that have only Christian employees Source: Field Survey, 2017 Table 4 measures respondents’ choices on the relationship between the roles and influences of religiosity/religion on customer patronage in security industry in Nigeria. For the first item, it is observed that majority of 62.8% of the respondents disagreed (44.5% ordinarily disagreed, 18.3% strongly disagreed) that most consumers patronized security outfit owned by people from the same religious group as them while 19.9% of the respondents agreed to this (4.0% strongly agreed, 15.9% ordinarily agreed). However, 17.3% of the respondents were undecided on this item. For the second item on this table, it was observed that 55.30% majority of the respondents also disagreed (37.0% ordinarily disagreed, 18.3% strongly disagreed) that most consumers would not patronize security outfit that have a high number of northern Muslims because of the fear of insurgence while 22.3% of the respondents also agreed to this (5.3% strongly agreed, 17.0% ordinarily agreed). However a total of 22.3% of the respondents were undecided that most consumers would not patronize security outfit that have a high number of northern Muslims because of the fear of insurgence. For the third item, it was noted that a majority of 57.1% of the respondents disagreed (39.5% ordinarily disagreed, 17.6% strongly disagreed) that most consumers would not patronize security companies that have a high number of Niger- deltas for fear of kidnapping and militancy while 20.3% of the respondents were agreed to this item (8.1% strongly agreed, 12.2% ordinarily agreed). A total of 22.6% of the respondents were undecided. For the fourth item, it was noted that also a majority of 81.2% of the respondents disagreed (45.8% ordinarily disagreed, 35.4% strongly disagreed) that most consumers patronize security companies that have only muslims employees while a total of 5.8% of the respondents only agreed to this item (2.4% ordinarily agreed, 3.4% strongly agreed). A total of 13.1% of the respondents were undecided. For the fifth item, it was observed that also a majority of 75.1% of the respondents disagreed (27.6% strongly disagreed, 47.5% ordinarily disagreed) that most consumers patronize security companies that have only christian employees while a total of 6.8% of the respondents only agreed (3.4% ordinarily agreed, 3.4% strongly agreed). A total of 18.2% of the respondents were undecided. Section Four: Test of hypotheses This section presents the tests for hypotheses stated earlier in chapter one. Three hypotheses were stated below and tested using regression tests and test of correlations for the identified variables under 5% level of significance. Hypothesis 1: Ho: There is no significant relationship between the impact of information technology initiative and Inventory control implementation in UAC Nigeria Plc. H1: There is significant relationship between the impact of information technology initiative and Inventory control implementation in UAC Nigeria Plc. Hypothesis 2: Ho: There is no significant relationship between the effect of internal integration of information technology and inventory control in UAC Nigeria Plc. H1: There is significant relationship between the effect of internal integration of information technology and inventory control in UAC Nigeria Plc. Hypothesis 3: Ho: There is no significant relationship between the factors that influence the firms’ adoption of a particular inventory management approach and model in UAC Nigeria Plc. H1: There is significant relationship between the factors that influence the firms’ adoption of a particular inventory management approach and model in UAC Nigeria Plc Condition for the Acceptance or Rejection of hypothesis. If returned p-value is > 0.05, accept Ho (null hypothesis) If returned p-value is